rote:
> More functionality can never affect backwardly the XHTML 2.0 standard,
Agreed
> and the pre-load proposal is both easy to implement and to code,
Agreed
> so why not do it? It is not a required argument, and if used it's very
> simple and clear.
This would not be a valid motivation to add it.
> Bad design? If somebody doesn't like this functionality, don't use it,
> but make it a part of the new standard because preloading _is_ important.
The question was if the pre-load attribute was only needed to hide
the effects of bad page design, or as a valid addition to the
functionallity of XHTML, without making XHTML heavyweigth as docbook is.
> As for Flash, I also dislike it's poor compatibility, but that is quite
> off-topic, I only posted it for the example.
Agreed
Christian Bottelier